Jump to content

Larry of the Lawn

Members
  • Posts

    14,137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Larry of the Lawn

  1. My girlfriend's temple not only recognizes the bulk of the Hindu pantheon, but also actively has prayers to specific deities. But from what understand, they refer to themselves as Buddhists and consider these deities to all be aspects of a larger god (I'm almost, but not quite embarrassed to admit that most of my discussion with her about this have been related to seeing how similar it is to Bakker's ontology in Second Apocalypse.). I think she practices a form of Mahayana Buddhism. And a Buddhist temple I visited in college for a religion class had shrines of Shiva and Vishnu and a couple other Hindu gods. I'm sure that what you describe is also true, but there are definitely Buddhists who recognize various deities. Whether or not that makes them theists or their practice of Buddhism theistic vs atheistic I couldn't really say. I suppose it would depend on a few different things.
  2. That's not so simple either. Some sects do recognize a bunch of deities.
  3. Oh boy! The last time raw milk came up in US politics we got this sweet thread out of it:
  4. One thing that is interesting about this is that as far as data goes, if violent video games and TV caused more violence we'd expect that rates of violent crime would have increased along with screentime and the explosion of visual digital media over the last 30-40 years. But that's not the case, at all. Violent crime is significantly down from that time period. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/ Obviously there are so many factors that [go into] crime and crime reporting that this statistic is meaningless on its own. And clearly, the rate of violent crime isn't the only expression of the influence of violence in media. We've certainly seen a proliferation of school shootings recently, hate crimes have increased from 2016 (and theres a noticeable drop in hate crimes during 2008-2016, hmmm). https://www.statista.com/chart/16100/total-number-of-hate-crime-incidents-recorded-by-the-fbi/ I'd guess, but I don't know enough about how these things are calculated to say, that this is a more difficult statistic to track, and that even when the overall rate is declining there could be some groups that become targeted at higher rates. I don't doubt that seeing violence 24/7 in every form of media does something to our brains. But I do think it interesting that whatever it does, it doesn't seem to be changing behavior as it relates to violent crime in any predictable way.
  5. That's not what I said, at all. I do think that violence for violence sake in art is lazy and probably not a good thing for people to be consuming, and we certainly have plenty of that. I disagree that some of the examples discussed are particularly egregious examples of that. There is also a lot of art, especially literature, that I think makes a similar argument to Slotkin. McCarthy and Pynchon seem hyper-fixated on the tackling foundational myths, attacking the popular portrayals of manifest destiny and greater good justifications for atrocity. But in doing so they definitely depict it, and I don think there's anything wrong with that. I'm sure there are better examples. Back to the stuff cited, I suppose Coppola's comments about Apocalypse Now not being an anti-war film could place a bit more scrutiny on how he uses violence on film, but I didn't get the impression after watching the Godfather films that Michael Corleone was someone to be admired. I don't know what we're supposed to do about this, but I'd lean towards more education rather than ratings systems or some method for limiting what people can do with film or TV. I think there is an actual slippery slope there where we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
  6. I don't know that there's anything wrong with artists centering horrible people in their works. I think it's a bad artistic choice to do that uncritically, or to romanticize antisocial behavior, but I'm not going to blame the artist if a bunch of people miss that criticism or decide to glorify the violence of a character on their own. For a well funded TV show or movie maybe there is a bit more social responsibility involved. I think Breaking Bad was pretty clear that Walter White was a horrible person who likely could have given his family comfort and security without turning to a life of crime. I also think there's an argument to be made that the network leaned into lionizing the [ character 's behavior] at times to some extent. I guess I'm saying I'm not going to blame an artist for the violence-worshipping, misogynist, or otherwise unhealthy response to their art unless it's actually making an appeal to those tendencies. I'm not sure that the Godfather (especially if you include the entire trilogy) or Breaking Bad are doing that. America does have some unique indulgences towards putting figures into the iconosphere, where most of the actual character or person is stripped away and they instead become a symbol or slate for whatever people need or want them to be, and I think there's a pretty established link to fascism down that path.
  7. Is it too much to ask? https://imgflip.com/i/8k9irv
  8. Most sexual assaults go unreported. It's one of the least prosecutable crimes because it often hinges on one witness against another. And that's before you even consider the fear and intimidation involved. I'm sure you know all this. Trump's on tape "you have to grab them by the pussy" c'mon man. That's not "locker room talk". but even without all this, Trump is a horrible presidential candidate. What is he going to do that you think is better than Biden? I don't particularly like Joe Biden. But as far as being President it's not even fucking close. Trump's an angry, hateful 14 year old boy in an old man body who couldn't even manage to not piss away his inherited super wealth. He's not a good businessman, he's not a good person, and he's certainly not good at managing the country. All we got out of Trump was a tax cut for the rich, stoking tensions in the middle east (moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, killing the Iranian Nuclear deal, killing Soleimani), three activist supreme court justices, a bunch of dog whistle racism, a bunch of overt displays of racism against Muslims and Central and South American immigrants, and a bungled attempt at using a crowd of angry idiot suburban dudes to stay in office un-democratically. There was no election fraud. Those claims have been investigated and tried in the courts of Trump appointed judges and all been bullshit. Why do you want more of that?
  9. Hah, just came across this on Reddit, an Atlantic article by Peter Watts on AI and consciousness: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/ai-consciousness-science-fiction/677659/?gift=b1NRd76gsoYc6famf9q-8kj6fpF7gj7gmqzVaJn8rdg&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share He mostly discussed the theory of free energy minimization (FEM), which suggests that consciousness may have arisen when an organism is "surprised", essentially when it's senses report something they did not predict, and that it is a temporary adaptive strategy to prevent system energy loss. His breakdown of FEM and its implications with AI s pretty cool (and funny) if you've read his sci-fi.
  10. Say the AG seizes all of Trump's FLA properties and Trump towers. How does that actually affect the election? At the end of the day he's still going to be in the top .1 % of Americans as far as wealth goes. Like beyond the schadenfreude angle, what does anyone expect the consequences of this to be other than his personal wealth being diminished, but in a way that still keeps him living a life of stupid-level luxury?
  11. Not saying Trump isn't making appeals to violence and all, but those blood bath comments do appear to be to hyperbolic and metaphorical language about China vs the US in the auto market. Not clear if the "no more elections" is about China or something domestic, and I'm sure there is a dogwhistle element to it, but at least read the entire article LR linked.
  12. What is an adversary when it can change every 4 years?
  13. I'm gonna apologize in advance for even sharing this and cursing you all for being exposed to it, but the prime number talk has put it in my mind all afternoon. This involves a guy trying to use prime numbers get beg for sex. *Apparently this became an important point that was argued about by the entire barroom after several of the women the guy had attempted to seduce began chatting about the way the math would work out.
  14. Well, yes. I suppose there's more of a case to be made for the aspects of it that Liff mentioned, but I'm not convinced that my designation of something as brainrot is sufficient for it to be banned, particularly when it's the only thing of its kind targeted. The security concerns are a separate conversation and concern, but yes, the brainrot aspect of this conversation absolutely has Satanic panic, Tipper Gore coming for you vibes.
  15. Yeah, that's awful. Nothing that horrific, but my little brother is 17 and it's been a nightmare trying to get him to unlearn a bunch of the shit pouring out of the right wing toxic masculinity Andrew Tate aligned crowd that he's come across through gaming and gaming discord. I'd be negligent if I didn't point out though, that it's tiktok that's being targeted by the ban. Not any of the apps or services mentioned in the linked Wapo piece.
  16. I think tiktok rots brains, and I know the Dems are never going to do anything but scorn the under 30 vote, but fucking hell, if Biden is equivocating on let's just say, a very lopsided violent conflict because he doesn't want to lose votes, why the fuck are they coming after tiktok in an election year? Edit: and by that "they" in the last sentence, I mean any Dems or part of the administration that thinks a bill banning tiktok would be something Biden should sign.
  17. Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud that the pundit class never wants to talk about.
  18. How do we do the second part? Congress can't get 60 senate votes for anything other than beefing up the Pentagon. Were probably never going to have another constitutional amendment. What's the actual plan? Getting rid of first past the post might help. How does that realistically happen?
  19. This is all true. Im interested in hearing, after the election I guess, how we are going to ever have an election that's any different? Because what seems like it's going to happen is, best case scenario, the Dems get the presidency and both houses (lol) and spend 8 months making very minor tweaks to one or two of the many escalating problems. They'll slow the growth of increasing medical costs, but not actually be able to reduce them. Or they'll get some kind of temporary tax cut for people who have 2 or more kids, make $48-49k a year or less than $6 or more than $390000, but its only good for two years and you have to reapply every 4 months. They'll try to make a national law legalizing abortion but it's going to fail because we really need The New Joe Manchin Punching Bag to get elected next time around They're going to talk about wanting to do more, but there's going to be some obstacles, a Parliamentarian or the Exchequer of Doom or the Whitehouse Sewer Gorgon or some such shit, and all the establishment Dem legislators are going to wring their hands and get real emotional about how they just wish the people in charge could do something. And then in two years one of the houses is going to flip and nothing's going to happen except giving the Pentagon more money than they ask for and a new campaign. And then someone is going to say "damn, I wish we could get out of this cycle." And they're going to be told to shut up until after the next election, and that they're entitled and they should be grateful for what they have, or that if they abstain from voting or vote [third] party they are effectively cannibalizing orphans. Yes, this is a dramatic and hyperbolic description. But let's be honest, the Dems and their biggest supporters have absolutely no fucking clue on how to fix this shit cycle*. It's a race to the bottom, and we're going to be having this same conversation every single time. Edit:* in fact they have an active interest in not fixing it.
  20. That actually depends quite a bit on where you vote.
  21. Huh. I wonder what the hivemind here would think about that. What does it mean to be a pro Israel Dem voter,? Im pro Israel in that I support their right to exist. If you want to take that cynical view, do your really think that Dem voters who are more pro Israel are going to vote for the guy who has no problem criminalizing abortion, putting the Bible in schools, etc? As far as saying "genocide", my bad if I missed some directive from the mods? I'm happy to keep the conversation within whatever boundaries are set.
  22. Have Schumer introduce a bill to make all material support to Israel contingent on a ceasefire, or have Biden invite Tlaib and Bowman etc I to the WH to address concerns. Use the Minnesota and Michigan primary "uncommitteds" as evidence that Biden needs to move on this or risk losing votes. Has he done this behind the scenes? Maybe, but I doubt it. There's a lot of room between the status quo and actually cutting aid. I'm not seeing much attempt to explore it. Edit: if the issue actually comes down to a cynical "what costs the most votes" and it's a coin toss, why not err on the side of not supporting genocide?
  23. Yeah, I think it was probably the most efficient way to get some of Paul's interiority into the film, always an issue with adaptations where the source material is so weighted with a main character's internal thoughts.
  24. Support for Israel is popular, so is support for a ceasefire.
×
×
  • Create New...